1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very loud.

3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very loud.

5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.

Which are grammatical and meaningful?

My problem with all of them is that they seem to be giving a reason
for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the criticism. Obviously
it boils down to the same thing, but to me they all sound strange.

Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in strange structures
Obsessed with ambiguity

On Sunday, arthurvv vart queried:

> 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
> 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very loud.
>
> 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
> 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very loud.
>
> 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
> 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
>
> Which are grammatical and meaningful?

At first glance, all of them, but some are clumsy. I think I prefer
#5.

>
> My problem with all of them is that they seem to be giving a reason
> for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the criticism. Obviously
> it boils down to the same thing, but to me they all sound strange.

I can see how you can see that, especially for 1-4. One solution would
be 5a:

5a) We heard a lot of criticism of his being very loud.

but perhaps that changes the semantics to just one trait being
criticized, shifting the focus from him to the trait.

Or we could try
7a) Because he is very loud, we hear a lot of criticism of him.

> Gratefully,
> Navi
>
> Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
> Interested in strange structures
> Obsessed with ambiguity

/dps "obsessed with context"

--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 5:17:38 PM UTC-8, Snidely wrote:
> On Sunday, arthurvv vart queried:
> > 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
> > 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very loud..
> >
> > 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
> > 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very loud..
> >
> > 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
> > 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
> >
> > Which are grammatical and meaningful?
> At first glance, all of them, but some are clumsy. I think I prefer
> #5.
> >
> > My problem with all of them is that they seem to be giving a reason
> > for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the criticism. Obviously
> > it boils down to the same thing, but to me they all sound strange.
> I can see how you can see that, especially for 1-4. One solution would
> be 5a:
>
> 5a) We heard a lot of criticism of his being very loud.

Seems unlikely. If he was that loud, we wouldn't be able to hear
any of the criticism.

bill

On 2024-01-29 01:17:22 +0000, Snidely said:

> On Sunday, arthurvv vart queried:
>
>> 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
>> 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very loud.
>>
>> 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
>> 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very loud.
>>
>> 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
>> 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
>>
>> Which are grammatical and meaningful?
>
> At first glance, all of them, but some are clumsy. I think I prefer #5.

Yes, that's the only one that sounds more or less natural.
>
>>
>> My problem with all of them is that they seem to be giving a reason
>> for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the criticism. Obviously
>> it boils down to the same thing, but to me they all sound strange.
>
> I can see how you can see that, especially for 1-4. One solution would be 5a:
>
> 5a) We heard a lot of criticism of his being very loud.
>
> but perhaps that changes the semantics to just one trait being
> criticized, shifting the focus from him to the trait.
>
> Or we could try
> 7a) Because he is very loud, we hear a lot of criticism of him.
>
>> Gratefully,
>> Navi
>>
>> Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
>> Interested in strange structures
>> Obsessed with ambiguity
>
> /dps "obsessed with context"

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Le 29/01/2024 à 01:17, Snidely a écrit :
> On Sunday, arthurvv vart queried:
>
>> 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
>> 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very loud.
>>
>> 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
>> 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very loud.
>>
>> 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
>> 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
>>
>> Which are grammatical and meaningful?
>
> At first glance, all of them, but some are clumsy.  I think I prefer #5.
>
>>
>> My problem with all of them is that they seem to  be giving a reason
>> for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the criticism.
>> Obviously
>> it boils down to the same thing, but to me they all sound strange.
>
> I can see how you can see that, especially for 1-4.  One solution would
> be 5a:
>
> 5a) We heard a lot of criticism of his being very loud.
>
> but perhaps that changes the semantics to just one trait being
> criticized, shifting the focus from him to the trait.
>
> Or we could try
> 7a) Because he is very loud, we hear a lot of criticism of him.

We heard him criticised a lot for being very loud.

On 00:30 29 Jan 2024, arthurvv vart said:

> 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
> 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very
> loud.
>
> 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
> 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very
> loud.
>
> 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
> 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
>
> Which are grammatical and meaningful?
>
> My problem with all of them is that they seem to be giving a reason
> for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the criticism.
> Obviously it boils down to the same thing, but to me they all sound
> strange.
>
> Gratefully,
> Navi
>
> Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
> Interested in strange structures
> Obsessed with ambiguity

I prefer (2) and (5).

I dislike (6).

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 5:31:01 PM UTC-7, arthurvv vart wrote:
> 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
> 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very loud.
>
> 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
> 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very loud.
>
> 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
> 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
>
> Which are grammatical and meaningful?

All, but only 5 sounds natural to me.

I heard "on account of" from people born before World War I, but I haven't
heard it in decades.

> My problem with all of them is that they seem to be giving a reason
> for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the criticism.

Not true of 5 and 6, and I don't really see it for the others.

> Obviously
> it boils down to the same thing, but to me they all sound strange.

--
Jerry Friedman

In article <XnsB1099CCDC4BE45D4AM2@135.181.20.170>,
pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com says...
>
> On 00:30 29 Jan 2024, arthurvv vart said:
>
> > 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
> > 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very
> > loud.
> >
> > 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
> > 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very
> > loud.
> >
> > 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
> > 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
> >
> > Which are grammatical and meaningful?
> >
> > My problem with all of them is that they seem to be giving a reason
> > for why we heard the criticism, not the content of the
criticism.

He was criticised for being very loud.

Janet

Le 30/01/2024 à 15:27, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>
> I heard "on account of" from people born before World War I, but I haven't
> heard it in decades. [...]

I'd happily use it, but it's true it's old-fashioned (but then, so am I):

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=on+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_gb_2019%2Con+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_us_2019&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

On 2024-01-30 16:58:16 +0000, Hibou said:

> Le 30/01/2024 à 15:27, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>>
>> I heard "on account of" from people born before World War I, but I haven't
>> heard it in decades. [...]
>
> I'd happily use it, but it's true it's old-fashioned (but then, so am I):
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=on+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_gb_2019%2Con+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_us_2019&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>

You surprise me. I regard it as a perfectly ordinary phrase.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Hibou speculated:
> Le 30/01/2024 à 15:27, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>>
>> I heard "on account of" from people born before World War I, but I haven't
>> heard it in decades. [...]
>
> I'd happily use it, but it's true it's old-fashioned (but then, so am I):

Something you share with the resident of Owlcroft, except the actual
croft is a fairly modern energy efficient design, and also includes an
induction rangetop.

> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=on+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_gb_2019%2Con+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_us_2019&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

On 2024-01-30 19:29:49 +0000, Snidely said:

> Hibou speculated:
>> Le 30/01/2024 à 15:27, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>>>
>>> I heard "on account of" from people born before World War I, but I haven't
>>> heard it in decades. [...]
>>
>> I'd happily use it, but it's true it's old-fashioned (but then, so am I):
>
> Something you share with the resident of Owlcroft,

It's a long time since we heard from Eric.

> except the actual croft is a fairly modern energy efficient design,
> and also includes an induction rangetop.
>
>
>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=on+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_gb_2019%2Con+account+of+his+being%3Aeng_us_2019&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>>
>
> /dps

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Jerry Friedman wrote:

> On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 5:31:01 PM UTC-7, arthurvv vart wrote:
>> 1) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of being very loud.
>> 2) We heard a lot of criticism of him on account of his being very loud.
>>
>> 3) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of being very loud.
>> 4) We heard a lot of criticism of him on because of his being very loud.
>>
>> 5) We heard a lot of criticism of him for being very loud.
>> 6) We heard a lot of criticism of him for his being very loud.
>>
>> Which are grammatical and meaningful?

> All, but only 5 sounds natural to me.

The _most_ natural to me, 5.

> I heard "on account of" from people born before World War I, but I haven't
> heard it in decades.

I would have said the same, but

https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/

shows some 250 post-2012 examples of "on account of his," say:

~~~
Source MAG: Hollywood Reporter
Date 2016 (16-05-15)
Title 'From the Land of the Moon' ('Mal de pierres'): Cannes Review

But it's always better than the lobotomy a French doctor suggests as an alternative. In this Magic Mountain setting, she meets Lt. Andr? (Garrel), irresistible but gravely ill after returning from France's war in Indochina, and her lust for life revives along with her dangerous flights of fantasy. In addition to being handsome, noble, brave and vulnerable on account of his serious illness, Lt. Andr? also shares Gabrielle's passion for the piano, and his melancholy rendition of Tchaikovsky's Juin -- Barcarolle provides a welcome interruption to composer Daniel Pemberton's violin-heavy score. # Cotillard's performance is luminous throughout
~~~

Best.
--
Marius Hancu